Monday, 7 January 2013

The IPCC - a history by IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray


NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 303 JANUARY 6TH 2013

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray

THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) 

INTRODUCTION

During the 1980s a new anti-science pseudo religion called ENVIRONMENTALISM became very popular. 

It replaced the conventional deity with THE ENVIRONMENT, which is a kind of mythical earthly Paradise which is worshipped and demanding of constant sacrifices.

It has established Ministries in most countries and a host of activists who impose its dogma on most news outlets. 


Its dogma includes
  • A static medieval earth with constant species and ecosystems subject only to natural variabilitybut threatened by change from the evil influence of humans.
  • The biblical concept the humans have responsibility for all other organisms
  • The replacement of evolution by sustainability.”
THE IPCC
A new pseudo scientific theory of the climate was developed to bolster the beliefs of the “Environmentalists” which ignored the accumulated wisdom of several hundred years of scientific meteorology and replaced it with a static climate, exclusively controlled by radiation, whose only overall change was “warming” caused by human changes in atmospheric concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere. After several Conferences on the subject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up jointly by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme in 1988 to provide “scientific“ justification for this theory which was launched at the United Nations “Earth Summit” Conference in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 . 

Three Working Groups WGI, Science, WG2, Impacts Vulnerability and Adaptation, and WGIII Mitigation were set up to gather and process scientific information which might support the theory. In later reports these were summarized in a Synthesis Report. 

My involvement with the IPCC began when I was working at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China in 1998 and at The Teachers University in Kunming in 1989. I became interested in this new climate theory that was being promoted by the scientific journals in the college libraries. It seemed plausible and I gave several lectures on it. 

I returned regularly to New Zealand where I visited my former employer, The Coal Research Association, where I had been Chief Chemist. I found that they had received the First Draft of the First IPCC Science Report, inviting comments. I supplied some which were sent, with others, to the New Zealand Ministry of the Environment who forwarded them to the IPCC with all the others from New Zealand. I commented on the Second Draft during my visit to the USA in 1989 which I read at the premises of the Marshall Institute in Washington DC. 

These comments were not acknowledged in the Final Report, “Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment” (1990) which only listed four individual comments from New Zealand.

The Report was a propaganda exercise promoting the models. They put the actual climate observations right at the end, making it difficult to check their claim that “The size of the warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models.” 

They also said “but it is also the same magnitude as natural variability.”  

This was the only Report that talked of “predictions”, but the text showed that this did not go beyond simulation of past results and personal opinions of authors. There was no evidence of successful future prediction in any of the Reports.

With all the Reports, there was a “Summary for Policymaker” which was really a “Summary by Policymakers, because it was dictated line by line to Drafting Authors by the anonymous Government representatives who control the IPCC. 

After “Climate Change (1990)” a Supplementary Report, ”Climate Change 1992” followed. This time my comments were listed under the name of the Director of Coal Research, R.S. Whitney.

This Report had the statement “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such” It also listed a new set of futures scenarios which replaced those in Climate Change 1990, .
.

All the Reports were intended to influence particular meetings of the supporters of the IPCC.

The first two played an important role in influencing the proceedings of the Earth Summit of the United nations in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992. 41 nations pledged to control emissions of greenhouse gases and signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change which defined “Climate Change, legally, as exclusively due to human emissions, whereas: Natural Changes: were merely “variable.” 

On my return to New Zealand in 1991 the Coal Research Association held a two day Conference in October where the keynote Speaker on the second day was Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, the most prominent US critic of the IPCC. I offered him two articles, one on the 1990 IPCC Report and the second of the 1992 supplement, which he subsequently published in a volume entitles “The Greenhouse Debate Continues”. 

The 1994 IPCC Report was devoted to Radiative Forcing and an Evaluation of the 1992 Emissions Scenarioswhich had replaced the ones in Clijmate Change (1990). My name was listed as a reviewer for the first time under “Non Government Organisations.” 

The Chapter on “Scenarios” stated “Since scenarios deal with the future they cannot be compared with observations.” 

I published papers about these reports, two in “Chemistry in New Zealand (1994, 1996) and one in New Zealand Science Review (1996)

The Second (1995) IPCC Report became notorious, as the Final Draft WGI Report did not meet the requirements of the anonymous Government members who dictated the “policymakers summary” and they engaged Ben Santer to alter a number of the statements in Chapter 8 the Final Draft. These were very numerous. Amongst them was deletion of the statement
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases”; which remains true to this day.

The First Report had a Chapter 4 entitled “Validation of Climate Models.” The same Chapter was in the First Draft of the next Report. I commented that since no Climate Model has ever been validated the title was inappropriate. In the next draft they had changed the title to “Evaluation of Climate Models”, and changed the word “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times throughout the Chapter. 

It should be explained that the term “validation” is a process whereby computer models may be tested to find whether they are suitable for future prediction. It involves a range of evidence for successful forecasts over the range required, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This process has still never been carried out, so no model so far is suitable for future prediction. 

In the same Second Draft, and ever afterwards the claim for successful prediction has never been made. The results of all computer models are “projections” dependent on the validity of the assumptions made. They are “evaluated” and “attributed” entirely on the opinions of the evaluators. 

My comments on this Report were published by the US Think Tank, the Heartland Institute.
I was probably the only scientist who commented on the IPCC 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios since it was part of the activity of the Committee WIII. It put forward a new set of scenarios which were imposed on the scientists of WGI. I wrote a paper for the Journal “Climate Research” entitled “The IPCC Scenarios, Are they Plausible” which essentially showed that they were not. According to the Climategate emails, this paper led to the sacking of not only the Editor involved, but the entire editorial board.

The Third Report in 2001 led to an invitation by Fred Singer for an International team of climate sceptics to Washington DC where we lectured in the Capitol building to an audience of mainly US Government officials. After this, the Kyoto Treaty was no longer accepted by the USA and we hope we played a part in this decision. 

I wrote a book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001” which was published by Multi-Science Publishers UK. It was launched in Wellington in 2002 in the Parliament buildings by Ken Shirley MP. It is still in print and was recently offered by Amazon.com

The Authors of Chapter 1 of “Climate Change 2001” signed their professional death warrant when they wrote:
The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th Century and that other trends have been observed, does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural
The Fourth Report (2007) took special precautions to ensure that no true statement about the climate like this one could ever appear again. Chapter 1 was now entitled Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” which dealt exclusively with the FCCC definition of “Climate Science”. It omitted all mention of conventional meteorology’ and concealed all the many measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide carried out between 1850 and 1975. 

Professor Yihui Ding
By this time I was largely debarred from lecturing in New Zealand. I was therefore surprised that in March 2006 I was invited to the Beijing Climate Center, where I gave three lectures covering most of my criticisms of the 4th (2007) IPCC Report, on the First Draft of which I had already commented. The Chairman of the WGI Committee that produced the Report was the Senior Fellow at the Beijing Climate Center Professor Yihui Ding. When I was given a paper in which he was the second author, which essentially showed that there had been no significant temperature change in China for 100 years, I assumed that he may be sympathetic to some of my comments. So I made as many as 1,878 comments on the next draft, 16% of the total received. 

Up to that time, all my comments were secret. I spent some time going through the published Reports trying to find out whether they had taken any notice of my comments. With the Fourth Report a demand that the comments and their treatment be made public was made through the Official Information Act, so all of them have been published, with most of them rejected out of hand, with no attempt to provide a reply. 

I summarised my comments in a paper on the “Summary for Policymakers” to “Energy in Environmentin 2007. 

When the Report was published I found that Professor Ding was no longer Chairman, although he is still in his post and has contributed to the current Fifth IPCC Report. 

There were several attempts by independent scientists to publish an alternative Report to the IPCC 4TH Report. I joined one of them, assembled by Fred Singer, who met in Vienna in April 2007 to discuss their contributions. The report was published in August 2009 by the Heartland Institute As “Climate Change Reconsidered”. 

The 5th IPCC Report is now under way, and I have commented on both the drafts of the WGI Committee. The details of the Second Draft have now been “leaked” so there is currently much discussion of its contents on the Internet. 

Much of the material in this Newsletter has already been published in my “Spinning the Climate” (2009), my autobiography “Confessions of a Climate Sceptic” (2010), “The Triumph of Doublespeak (2010) and several Newsletters.

Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

A Tale of Two Hemispheres

Frozen Bus stop in Bulgaria
Image 123RF
It must be climate disruption.

Down-under, Australia, especially Eastern Australia, is experiencing a heatwave, which has caused some devastating fires in Tasmania.
Weather Channel Australia reports:
Hobart recorded it’s hottest day in 132 years of records just before 2pm today, with 41.3˚C. This broke the previous record of 40.8˚C recorded on January 4, 1976.
Sydney is heading for a high temperature also. The Bureau of Meteorology is predicting 43º for Sydney's Western Suburbs. That will be nothing like the record in 1939.
The hottest day on record for Sydney is 45.3, set on January 14, 1939, followed by 44.2 on New Year's Day, 2006. (SMH)

Meanwhile, a semi hemisphere away, China shivers with lows of minus 40ºc

THE coldest weather for 30 years has brought temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius and left about 260,000 people in need of emergency aid in northern China's Inner Mongolia region, state media says. 
 
The cold spell killed at least two people and about 180,000 head of livestock, affecting some 770,000 people across Inner Mongolia since late December, the Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.  (Source AAP)
And a China Update:
Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend.
Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius, 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration.
Bitter cold has even frozen the sea in Laizhou Bay on the coast of Shandong province in the east, stranding nearly 1,000 ships, the China Daily newspaper reported. (UK Daily Mail)

And the Sub-continent:
LUCKNOW, India (AP) -- More than 100 people have died of exposure as northern India deals with historically cold temperatures.  (Associated Press)
For the thousands of homeless in the city, this record-breaking winter is turning out to be a sore trial. As the mercury stayed at a 44-year daytime low through Wednesday, they bore their misery huddled on pavements, spaces under flyovers, and in open grounds as there was not enough space to house all of them at the city's 150 night shelters. (Times of India)
Korea is also suffering:
SEOUL - A prolonged cold spell sent the mercury plummeting throughout South Korea Thursday, with temperatures dropping to their lowest levels in decades, the country's weather agency said.

The South Korean capital city of Seoul recorded a temperature of minus 16.5º Celsius in the morning, the lowest in 27 years since a minus 16.9º C was recorded in 1986, the Korea Meteorological Administration said. (interaksyon.com)
Bulgaria records four record lows:
Four temperature records were registered Thursday morning by Bulgaria's national weather service, as a cold wave grippedBulgaria,  the country.

The coldest location and one of the temperature records is the weste
rn city of Kyustendil with -19 degrees Centigrate, said the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology.

The other three records were registered at the central town of Kazanlak (-14.8ºC), south-western city of Blagoevgrad (-13.5 C), and north-western city of Montana (-11.8ºC).

The situation in north-eastern Bulgaria remains complicated due to low temperatures, snow drifts and ice, with some roads impassible. (novinite.com)
Before the rabid alarmists start blaming Australia's heat wave on man's emissions of the vital-to-life carbon dioxide, NCTCS blog recommends that they look at the rest of the world.


Guinness Book of Climate Crap

Michael Mann trying to flatten the MWP.
James Delingpole writes for today's Australian about the book: Guinness World Records. James asks "Since when, anyway, did it become the job of a book specialising in world records (hence - duh! - its title Guinness World Records) to disseminate alarmist propaganda about climate change?"

On pages 34 and 35 of the latest edition of the book that used to be called The Guinness Book of Records, James notes:
"....here was a whole section that had mysteriously been devoted to the deadly threat of "climate change". I say "mysteriously" because, despite the publishers' feeble attempt to hide the fact by heading the section "To the Limits", it contains very little by way of actual world records." 
Rather, what you get is scaremongering eco-propaganda so blatant and biased it might have come straight off a Greenpeace press release.
Here's one example: "Fact: Pine Island glacier in Antarctica is shrinking by at least 16m a year and may be gone in 100 years," it says. This may or may not be true but it's an odd thing to single out, given that the most salient climate fact about Antarctica is that its ice mass has been increasing dramatically.
In fact there is a record that Guiness could have recorded. Antarctic Ice has hit a record high.
In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday.  (National Geographic - link)
James continues:
And here's another: "Hockey Stick Graph. Published by the UN's Intergovernmental on Planet Change in 2001, this graph is one of the most controversial in science." What it doesn't tell the impressionable young reader is why the graph is controversial: it has been so utterly and repeatedly discredited that almost no one, save its inventor Michael Mann and a few of his mates, takes it remotely seriously any more.
It is amazing that a fraudulent graph still dupes some people including the Guinness people (link)

James asks why a book of records starts to push eco-propaganda.
Since when, anyway, did it become the job of a book specialising in world records (hence - duh! - its title Guinness World Records) to disseminate alarmist propaganda about climate change? Don't our kids already get fed more than enough of that hysterical drivel by their teachers, by Greg Combet and Tim Flannery, by every other doco on the ABC? Isn't this exactly why Ian Plimer wrote How To Get Expelled From School as a desperate attempt to counteract all the environmental brainwashing to which our kids are now constantly subjected?
More at The Australian HERE.

Checking up on past forecasts about climate change

Image: FreakingNews.com
Blogger Fabius Maximus ( surely a nom-de-plume and not the long dead Roman dictator):
Summary:  While we quake in fear at the stream of apocalyptic forecasts fed us by the news media, let’s look back at two previous forecasts about rising sea levels and melting sea ice. Perhaps we’d get better forecasts from our experts if we more often held them accountable for them.
He then addresses these two apocalyptic forecasts.
Opening the NorthWest Passage to shipping
Arctic Meltdown“, NASA press release, 27 February 2001:
… in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer.
Well, as Fabius notes, 11 years have passed and the NASA prediction is busted.

Next, Reiss addresses James Hansen's prediction of the flooding of New York.
A flooded New York City
Bob Reiss speaks of his interview with climate scientists James Hansen (“Stormy weather“, Suzy Hansen, Salon, 23 October 2001; with 2 corrections from his 2004 book The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather And Our Terrifying Future):
Bob Reiss asked Hansen what would be different in a New York Scene in 2030, Part of Hansen's reply:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Reiss writes:
Twenty-two years have passed on Hanson’s 42 year forecast.  How much have the seas risen around New York City?  The Battery Park tidal gauge shows a rise of aprox 181 mm (7 inches).  Only a massive increase in the millenia-long rate of sea level rise will flood the edge of Manhattan.
See also IPCC's sea level rise projections busted (link.)

An excellent post, well worth a read can be found HERE at Fabius Maximus.

H/t Al Bradley.